DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 5 Multimodal Streets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHAPTER 5 Multimodal Streets CHAPTER 5 MULTIMODAL STREETS Streets are our largest urbanized public open spaces and provide the framework upon which cities are built. Historically, they have served many functions for many users, providing mobility as well as creating spaces in which people meet and interact. As automobiles became more abundant, however, the design of streets shifted to emphasize the movement of cars at high rates of speed. By enabling sprawling land use patterns, the automobile became a necessity as well as an American cultural symbol, and accommodation of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users became secondary to high “levels of service” for the automobile. In contrast, a street that provides for all modes of transportation—including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit vehicles as well as automobiles—is known as a complete street, because it serves the needs of everyone. Complete, multimodal streets are important in Smart Growth Areas because they accommodate the variety of transportation choices necessary to support more intensive development, while minimizing the amount of land required for automobile travel and storage. Their design emphasizes balance—the appropriate allocation of often-limited public rights-of-way to share between the multiple functions and users of the street. It also emphasizes sensitivity to the context in which streets exist, so that streets support the surrounding land uses and enhance the character of the community. 59 5.1 Street Networks and Connectivity Street connectivity refers to the directness of links and the density of connec- tions in the network. A well-connected network has many short links, numer- ous intersections and minimal cul-de-sacs. As connectivity increases, travel distances decrease and route options increase, creating a more accessible and flexible system. One way of measuring connectivity is to count the number of street intersec- tions per square mile. Higher densities of intersections, particularly four-leg intersections, indicate a more highly connected street network. Street networks with low connectivity often have intersection densities below 100 per square mile. In contrast, a highly connected network typically has at least 200 inter- sections per square mile, and may have more than 300. 5.1.1 Redevelopment of Large Sites As part of infill redevelopment of very large sites, such as former shopping malls or manufacturing businesses, developers should strive to create a highly- connected network of streets. Redevelop the street network to provide short street segments and walkable block sizes as much as possible. A 200- to 300-foot spacing of streets on average is optimal to support pedestrian activity; up to 400-foot spacing on average is acceptable. Extend surrounding streets through the project where appropriate. Space major thoroughfares no more than 1/4 mile from one another in dense urban areas, and 1/2 mile apart in other places, so that each thoroughfare requires fewer lanes. Dedicated bicycle paths increase connectivity in this San Diego neighborhood. In this example, plans to remove an existing The redeveloped site extends surrounding building (shaded dark gray) create an streets through the site where possible opportunity to redevelop a superblock. and provides a pedestrian connection through the block where a street cannot be extended. San Diego Association of Governments 60 MULTIMODAL STREETS Designing for Smart Growth | Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region Provide a dense network of local streets, with multiple connections to sur- rounding major thoroughfares. Where possible, use alleys rather than curb cuts to provide access to vehicle parking and loading spaces. At the edges of new development, include street stubs that allow connections to adjacent properties that may develop or redevelop in the future. Connect new streets to the surrounding street network. Where dead-end streets are necessary, provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent streets. Include a system of bicycle facilities, including on-street bike lanes, sepa- rated paths or shared lanes on traffic-calmed streets, with multiple parallel routes. Connect bicycle facilities to major destinations such as schools, retail dis- tricts and parks, as well as to existing bicycle facilities on adjacent streets. Provide pedestrian facilities on both sides of all streets, with connections to off-street paths where needed. Provide paseos and other pedestrian and bicycle connections where streets are not continuous. 5.1.2 Reconstruction of Existing Streets Rebuilding an existing street creates an opportunity to redesign the street so it See Also is more compatible with the existing context, or with the community’s vision “Transformation of Existing Places” for its future. The visual simulations in Chapter 2 show examples of how exist- on page 20 ing streets in the San Diego region could be redesigned to accommodate all modes of travel. When redesigning a street, consider whether traffic lanes could be narrowed for traffic calming or to gain additional width for other uses. In general, narrowing lanes may be appropriate on streets that carry fewer than 20,000 vehicles per day under future design year conditions; where intersections are closely spaced to allow for vehicle queueing; and where speeds are low. When redesigning a street, consider whether traffic lanes could be removed to provide adequate space for pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, as well as medians, center turn lanes and on-street parking. In general, removing lanes may be appropriate on four-lane undivided streets that carry fewer than 20,000 vehicles per day under future design year conditions. This street in Oakland, California, connects to an off- When redesigning a thoroughfare, consider whether it could be realigned to street pedestrian path that leads to a transit station. improve connectivity and accessibility to surrounding properties. Conduct an appropriate environmental assessment when redesigning a street. This assessment should consider impacts to the roadway, but also any beneficial effects on pedestrian and bicycle mobility, as well as modal shifts from automobile traffic to transit service. San Diego Association of Governments Designing for Smart Growth | Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region MULTIMODAL STREETS 61 5.2 Complete Streets Complete streets follow the key principles in this section and, as a result, can be safely shared by motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. 5.2.1 Balancing User Needs A network of complete streets enables safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities can safely move along and across a network of multimodal streets. This form of street design requires that the street be compatible with its context. Multimodal streets such as this one in La Jolla are In 2008, the State of California enacted AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act, accessible to all users. which requires cities and counties to incorporate provisions for multimodal streets into their General Plan Circulation Elements starting in 2011. This legislation creates many new opportunities to plan for multimodal streets in the years to come. Begin the street design process with a long-range vision for the community, district or street. The vision should provide for future and existing needs. Create a design that supports community values and economic development, as well as safe mobility and access for all users. Prioritize multimodal design elements, such as bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks and transit lanes, and implement the highest-priority elements if the right- A multimodal street in San Diego accommodates of-way is constrained. This may involve reducing the number of automobile pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit travel lanes. riders. Ensure that all streets are accessible to people with disabilities, as well as others with limited mobility. Consider special users, especially the elderly and children, depending on the surrounding development context. 5.2.2 Design for Pedestrians Pedestrians should be accommodated on all streets, even auto-oriented streets. See Also The following guidelines explain how to design a street that meets the basic Planning and Designing for Pedestrians needs of pedestrians. SANDAG’s Planning and Designing for Pedestrians pro- vides additional details about how to create pedestrian-oriented streets. Provide continuous pedestrian connections within the public right-of-way, avoiding any gaps or diversions that require significant detours. Design all pedestrian routes to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Provide a 6-foot to 12-foot buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic, using a combination of landscaping, street trees, on-street vehicle parking and striped bicycle lanes. San Diego Association of Governments 62 MULTIMODAL STREETS Designing for Smart Growth | Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region Include pedestrian amenities such as street trees that provide a canopy over the sidewalk, seats where people can rest and pedestrian-scaled lighting. Incorporate public plazas and public art in selected locations. Provide safe street crossings, preferably spaced no more than 300 to 500 feet apart. A signalized intersection with a pedestrian-activated signal is one example of a safe crossing. On some streets, it may also be safe to provide a well-marked unsignalized crossing, with or without a pedestrian refuge. Consider providing a mid-block
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civitas Measure Directory 10 Years of Civitas from Aalborg to Zagreb
    CIVITAS MEASURE DIRECTORY 10 YEARS OF CIVITAS FROM AALBORG TO ZAGREB A REFERENCE GUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY EUROPEAN CITIES BETWEEN 2002 AND 2012 About CIVITAS The CIVITAS Initiative (“City-Vitality-Sustainability”, or “Cleaner and Better Transport in Cities”) was launched in 2002. Its fundamental aim is to support cities to introduce ambitious transport measures and policies towards sustainable urban mobility. The goal of CIVITAS is to achieve a significant shift in the modal split towards sustainable transport, an objective reached through encouraging both innovative technology and policy-based strategies. In the first phase of the project (2002 to 2006), 19 cities participated in four research and demonstration projects; and in CIVITAS II (2005 to 2009), 17 cities participated across a further four projects. The initiative has just reached the end of its third phase, CIVITAS Plus (2008 to 2013), in which 25 cities were working together on five collaborative projects. In 2012, the CIVITAS Plus II phase was launched, with seven European cities and one non-European city collaborating across two new projects. In total, more than 60 European cities have been co-funded by the European Commission to implement innovative measures in clean urban transport, an investment volume of well over EUR 300 million. But CIVITAS does not stop there. The so-called demonstration cities are part of the larger CIVITAS Forum network, which comprises more than 200 cities committed to implementing and integrating sustainable urban mobility measures. By signing a non-binding voluntary agreement known as the CIVITAS Declaration, cities and their citizens benefit from the accumulated know-how, experience and lessons learned of every participant.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S
    NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITIES FINAL REPORT Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. NITC-RR-583 June 2014 A University Transportation Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation LESSONS FROM THE GREEN LANES: EVALUATING PROTECTED BIKE LANES IN THE U.S. FINAL REPORT NITC-RR-583 Portland State University Alta Planning Independent Consultant June 2014 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. NITC-RR-583 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Lessons From The Green Lanes: June 2014 Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes In The U.S. 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Chris Monsere, Jennifer Dill, Nathan McNeil, Kelly Clifton, Nick Foster, Tara Goddard, Matt Berkow, Joe Gilpin, Kim Voros, Drusilla van Hengel, Jamie Parks 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Chris Monsere Portland State University P.O. Box 751 Portland, Oregon 97207 11. Contract or Grant No. NITC-RR-583 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) Final Report P.O. Box 751 Portland, Oregon 97207 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report presents finding from research evaluating U.S. protected bicycle lanes (cycle tracks) in terms of their use, perception, benefits, and impacts. This research examines protected bicycle lanes in five cities: Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; and Washington, D.C., using video, surveys of intercepted bicyclists and nearby residents, and count data.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Master Plan Existing and Future Conditions Technical
    Kelowna Transportation Master Plan Existing and Future Conditions Technical Report August 2019 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 5 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 11 a) Role of the Transportation Master Plan ............................................................................................ 11 b) Study Process & Timeline ................................................................................................................ 11 c) Coordination with Other Plans ........................................................................................................ 13 d) Local and Global Trends .................................................................................................................. 13 e) Policy Context ................................................................................................................................ 15 2. COMMUNITY PROFILE ............................................................................................ 20 a) Land Use and Transportation .......................................................................................................... 20 b) Demographic Trends ....................................................................................................................... 24 c) Daily Travel Patterns......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bellingham Bikeways Illustrated
    BIKEWAYS ILLUSTRATED What are “Bikeways”? Bellingham uses the term bikeways to refer to the entire spectrum of bicycle facility types installed or planned on public streets comprising the Primary Bicycle Network → in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. A variety of bikeway facilities and markings are illustrated on the following pages; organized from least to most expensive. Additional information is available on the Interactive Bike Map BELLINGHAM BIKEWAYS ILLUSTRATED Bellingham’s 2014 Bicycle Master Plan is based on guidance and best practices and from Excerpt from the multiple sources, including, but not limited to: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide • MUTCD = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2nd Edition, 2014), Introduction, page xi: • AASHTO = American Association of Highway Transportation Officials “For each treatment in the Guide, the • NACTO = National Association of City Transportation Officials reader will find three levels of guidance: • WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual In all cases, we encourage engineering • Local knowledge and professional expertise judgement to ensure that the regarding land use development context; application makes sense for the context multimodal transportation system; and of each treatment, given the many transportation plans and studies. complexities of urban streets.” Bike Boulevards • Comprise 39%, or 52 miles, of Bellingham’s 170-mile Primary Bicycle Network; shown in pink on Bicycle Network Map • Low-stress bikeways installed on residential streets that have low vehicle speeds (20-25 mph) and low vehicle traffic volumes (less than 2,000 vehicles per day) as a less direct, but more comfortable route for people on bikes. • Not intended to be off-limits to cars, but where necessary, physical traffic calming devices can be used to control cut- through vehicle traffic, volume, and speed to optimize Bike Boulevards for use by people on bikes.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Forty-Two BICYCLE FACILITIES
    Chapter Forty-two BICYCLE FACILITIES BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS MANUAL BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS & STREETS Oct 2013 BICYCLE FACILITIES 42(i) Chapter Forty-two BICYCLE FACILITIES Table of Contents Section Page 42-1 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS ........................................................................... 42-1(1) 42-1.01 Definitions ............................................................................................ 42-1(1) 42-1.02 Policy ................................................................................................... 42-1(2) 42-1.03 Needs Assessment .............................................................................. 42-1(2) 42-2 CHECKLIST FOR BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS .............................................. 42-2(1) 42-2.01 Bicycle Travel Generators in the Project Vicinity .................................. 42-2(1) 42-2.02 Public Coordination .............................................................................. 42-2(3) 42-2.03 Assessment of Bicycle Travel............................................................... 42-2(3) 42-3 BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES.......................................................... 42-3(1) 42-3.01 Bicycle Facility Design Analysis ........................................................... 42-3(1) 42-3.01(a) Data Collection and Flow Analysis ................................... 42-3(1) 42-3.01(b) Bicycle Level of Service ................................................... 42-3(1) 42-3.01(c) Safety Analysis ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT PLAN Appendix a September 11, 2015 | 1
    N.B. This draft has been prepared for the City’s review and ease of editing. Once edits have been received, the document will be transferred into a graphically-compelling layout with complete photographs, captions, and tables. APPENDIX A – DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION The guidance in this appendix is intended to serve as a guide for implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. Design guidance in this document is based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012; and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2012. Guidance in this document is consistent with these manuals. Application of guidance in this document requires the use of professional engineering judgment. DESIGN Preference surveys and research studies have found widespread support and interest for bicycling with strong The quality of bicycle preferences given to the provision of high quality bikeways facilities has a direct impact which provide the following elements: on the overall experience of the user, and will therefore Separation from high volumes of fast-moving have a tremendous influence automobiles on the ability of the facility to Maneuverability within the bikeway to operate safely sustain and attract high levels Space for cyclists to ride together in a social manner, of ridership. side-by-side. These qualities are routinely provided on trails, and are increasingly provided on streets through the provision of bicycle lanes, protected bicycle lanes, or bicycle boulevards. Well-maintained, high quality facilities have been demonstrated to attract higher levels of use than poorly maintained or low quality facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities
    2009 Edition Page 789 PART 9 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES CHAPTER 9A. GENERAL Section 9A.01 Requirements for Bicyclist Traffic Control Devices Support: 01 General information and definitions concerning traffic control devices are found in Part 1. Section 9A.02 Scope Support: 01 Part 9 covers signs, pavement markings, and highway traffic signals specifically related to bicycle operation on both roadways and shared-use paths. Guidance: 02 Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 should be reviewed for general provisions, signs, pavement markings, and signals. Standard: 03 The absence of a marked bicycle lane or any of the other traffic control devices discussed in this Chapter on a particular roadway shall not be construed to mean that bicyclists are not permitted to travel on that roadway. Section 9A.03 Definitions Relating to Bicycles Support: 01 Definitions and acronyms pertaining to Part 9 are provided in Sections 1A.13 and 1A.14. Section 9A.04 Maintenance Guidance: 01 All signs, signals, and markings, including those on bicycle facilities, should be properly maintained to command respect from both the motorist and the bicyclist. When installing signs and markings on bicycle facilities, an agency should be designated to maintain these devices. Section 9A.05 Relation to Other Documents Support: 01 “The Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance” published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (see Section 1A.11) has provisions for bicycles and is the basis for the traffic control devices included in this Manual. 02 Informational documents used during the development of the signing and marking recommendations in Part 9 include the following: A.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Bicycling Corridor Improvements on Users' Behaviors
    Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education Project ID: 2019 Project 14 IMPACTS OF BICYCLING CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ON USERS’ BEHAVIORS IN LARGE CITIES Final Report by Mehdi Azimi, Ph.D., PE (ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5678-032) Assistant Professor, Department of Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University Phone: (713) 313-1293; E-mail: [email protected] Mohammed Suyedur Luqman Rahman (ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4274-8557) Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University Phone: (713) 313-5696; E-mail: [email protected] Yi Qi, Ph.D. (ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6314-2626) Professor and Chair, Department of Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University Phone: (713) 313-6809; E-mail: [email protected] for Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education (CAMMSE @ UNC Charlotte) The University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28223 September 2020 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education (CAMMSE @ UNC Charlotte), one of the Tier I University Transportation Centers that were selected in this nationwide competition by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), US Department of Transportation (US DOT), under the FAST Act. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the US DOT University Transportation Centers Program in the interest of information exchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Findings from the World's Largest Pop-Up Bike Network
    Findings from the World’s Largest Pop-Up Bike Network 2 Report prepared by 8 80 Cities In support of Macon Connects November 2016 Macon Connects Team Lead: Community Engagement Lead: Prototyping Lead: Josh Rogers Rossana Tudo Monica Diodati President & CEO Project Manager Senior Project Manager NewTown Macon 8 80 Cities Better Block E: [email protected] E: [email protected] E: [email protected] T: (416) 722-9909 T: (416) 591-7404 ext. 6 T: (214) 883-9982 W: www.newtownmacon.com W: www.880cities.org W: www.betterblock.org 555 Poplar Street 192 Spadina Avenue Suite #510 700 West Davis Macon, Georgia Toronto, Ontario Dallas, Texas 31201, USA M5T 2C2, Canada 75208, USA Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Evolution of Macon Connects 4 The Method to our madness 7 Findings 19 Recommendations 29 Resources 37 1 Executive Summary 1 Macon Connects was a bold initiative that set out to network throughout the urban core, also known as a change the way Macon residents get around for the “minimum grid”. Out of over 4,500 applications, 32 better. Building on the recommendations of the 2015 ideas were selected to be funded, including Macon Macon Action Plan (MAP), a comprehensive strategy Connects. to guide change and growth in the urban core, Macon Connects zeroed in on the MAP directive to “cultivate The Ideas connectivity”. We wanted to know: In June of 2016, we held a three-day Ideas Festival consisting of 19 events that appealed to a wide range How can Macon residents better connect to one of audiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Performance of Bicycle Infrastructure in Canada (Past
    APPENDICES Safety Performance of Bicycle Infrastructure in Canada November 2020 Safety Performance of Bicycle Infrastructure in Canada DISCLAIMER This document is not intended to be used as a basis for establishing civil liability. The material presented in this text was carefully researched and presented. However, no warranty expressed or implied is made on the accuracy of the contents or their extraction from reference to publications; nor shall the fact of distribution constitute responsibility by TAC or any researchers or contributors for omissions, errors or possible misrepresentations that may result from use or interpretation of the material contained herein. Information within this report should be considered in the context of local legislation, regulation and policy. © 2020 Transportation Association of Canada 401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive Ottawa, ON | K2C 3T2 Tel. (613) 736-1350 | Fax (613) 736-1395 www.tac-atc.ca ISBN 978-1-55187-704-4 (Main Publication) Safety Performance of Bicycle Infrastructure in Canada Table of contents Appendix A : Literature review .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.1 Safety and perceived safety of bicycle infrastructure .............................................................................. A-1 A.2 Additional considerations of bicycle safety ............................................................................................ A-36 A.3 Works cited ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County, Colorado Regional Bikeways Wayfinding Guide
    TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES A Wayfinding Issues and Opportunities ......................................... 2 B Best Practices and Case Studies ............................................... 17 C Regional Destinations ................................................................. 45 2 JEFFCO REGIONAL BIKEWAYS WAYFINDING GUIDE Appendix A Wayfinding Issues and Opportunities OVERVIEW An audit of existing wayfinding facilities was completed by both driving and bicycling along Jefferson County's network of on- and off-street network of bicycle facilities. These field tours focused on larger regional networks (C-470, Clear Creek Trail, etc.) and infrastructure within the communities of Arvada, Edgewater, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge. The routes traveled represent trail and on-street facilities typical of Jefferson County and local communities. These routes are also likely to be selected as wayfinding corridors. The purpose of this audit was to document existing wayfinding infrastructure and identify opportunities. The following sections summarize the field tours through photos and observations concerning the form and function of: • Existing bicycle wayfinding • Existing community wayfinding • Regional wayfinding APPENDIX A: WAYFINDING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ,t 3 EXISTING BICYCLE WAYFINDING EXISTING BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE OBSERVATIONS Jefferson County has a network of designated on- and off-street bicycle facilities that are used for both recreation and daily travel. Existing wayfinding largely provides guidance along
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Lane Feasibility Study
    Sebastopol Bike Lane Feasibility Study Prepared for the City of Sebastopol Submitted by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 voice 707.542.9500 fax 707.542.9590 web www.w-trans.com May 24, 2011 Balancing Functionality and Livability Traffic Engineering l Transportation Planning TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Feasibility Process ...........................................................................................................................................13 Segment Evaluations and Recommendations ............................................................................................17 Recommendation Summary and Cost Estimates .....................................................................................29 Study Participants and References ..............................................................................................................33 Figures 1 Proposed and Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]